To think the royal family are a bloody embarrassment

[MariaAngustias]

Just that - why are we paying for this bunch when we could be spending the money on essential services? Let the Queen continue then after her just get rid of the whole bloody lot of them. We have and alleged paedo, a whinging multi millionaire in his 30's moaning constantly, an allegedly corrupt heir to the throne meeting dodgy russians for money....... just go, enough. Seriously - this is all Jeremy Kyle for poshos.

@Jaysmith71

They're not in charge of the state.

The various lists of the best-governed, least corrupt and most democratic countries on Earth show that around eight of the top ten are constitutional monarchies.

The monarch is the formal head of state

Either they have some kind of power and influence (which is completely outdated and undemocratic)

Or they have no power and influence, in which case what's the point of them?

Back to my proposal for the House of Redknapp-Lampard. King Arry and Queen Sandra would hold court in Sandbanks and process by Royal Barge to the shops in Poole.

Most royal duties would be carried out by Prince Jamie, Crown Prince Frank and Princess Christine.

Gets my vote.

I'm always amazed by posters who seem to think that the royal family should be stripped of their lands and possessions. Land and possessions that they actually own and have inherited? I'm sure some posters would be quite happy to live in places like North Korea judging by what they consider to be reasonable state intervention/ownership!

What you mean there is ‘lands and possessions that their ancestors stole and looted’

There’s a big thing made of the Queens commitment to her ‘duty’ above all else, but Andrew appears to be her stumbling block on that front. I do think if he is protected it will be the end of the monarchy.

@Jaysmith71

Back to my proposal for the House of Redknapp-Lampard. King Arry and Queen Sandra would hold court in Sandbanks and process by Royal Barge to the shops in Poole.

Most royal duties would be carried out by Prince Jamie, Crown Prince Frank and Princess Christine.

Gets my vote.

Or we could just not have a monarchy.

@Snowdrop30

I think it's time to let it all go. It's clearly a miserable way to live for members of the Royal Family - like being an animal in a zoo the whole time. Wildly unhealthy. It also costs a fortune, which is not a priority for the UK's nations now. And the idea that anyone is fundamentally better than anyone else (or above the law) is just offensive. Let this lot quietly wind down, keep a home per family and security whilst they are alive, as I wouldn't wish harm to come any of them (except for those dodging statutory rape charges). But go with good grace - hand back most of the palaces and huge estates to the countries they should belong to (eg Buck Place to England, Balmoral to Scotland). No one needs more than one home, and they can be used to generate tourist income, as a genuine public service to rebuild social security after a horrendous pandemic.

Yes, a 'phasing out' approach would be a good way forward. They have more than enough money already to lead what would be by any normal standards a life of luxury for the remainder of their lives. Stop actively funding them, and say 'no more titles'. Future generations would either have to rely on existing inherited wealth, or get a job like anyone else.

Or we could just not have a monarchy.

Like I said, Norman Fowler.

They are ceremonial showpieces. They get funding in return for being a caricature of a middle age fairy tale. When they don’t keep up their end of the bargain and start trying to become trashy celebrities, it becomes problematic. You know like when they tell us all to go green and take private jets themselves, or bang on about privacy but are in tv bleating about being victimized every waking hour or the day. Let’s not even get started on Andrew.
Essentially, the Royals are the only people that should be told firmly not to get above their station. They have a job to do, they get paid for it. They should shut up and do the job.

I'm always amazed by posters who seem to think that the royal family should be stripped of their lands and possessions. Land and possessions that they actually own and have inherited? I'm sure some posters would be quite happy to live in places like North Korea judging by what they consider to be reasonable state intervention/ownership!

But the royals don't "actually own" most of 'their' properties. The majority of royal properties - including Buck Palace, Windsor Castle and the like - belong to the legal entity known as The Crown, and ultimately to the British nation. The monarch is simply the custodian. Were the monarchy to be abolished, these properties would revert to the nation, though I'm sure there'd be an awful lot of legal headaches involved.

They do privately own Balmoral and Sandringham, but most of the places we associate with the royals are Crown properties which they hold in trust for the British nation.

They are lead bred to believe that they are more special than others and have people bowing at them it's no wonder they are as they are. I don't know the answer, as a president would be bad in other ways

Fixed that for you, @SunIsBehindGreySky.

@THisbackwithavengeance

I'm always amazed by posters who seem to think that the royal family should be stripped of their lands and possessions. Land and possessions that they actually own and have inherited? I'm sure some posters would be quite happy to live in places like North Korea judging by what they consider to be reasonable state intervention/ownership!

I'm also sure many members of the Royal Family would be happy to be "deposed". And then they could sit and enjoy their money like other rich people do without the burden of public service, having to open community centres and make small talk with members of the public etc etc.

I like the Royal Family and the history and culture it represents. Would you really prefer President Boris or whichever other numpty elected by the Great British Public. I can't imagine anything worse than a US style government.

I know fuck all about politics but I can imagine that a PM having to visit the Queen and explain him or herself every week must temper some of the most mad policies?

Apart from, the Crown Estate and Duchies aren’t ‘their’ possessions.

The King of yore handed them over to Parliament as a public asset so he wouldn’t have to pay for the army, civil service etc.

Agree with you OP. Tourists will still be coming into the country regardless of the Royal Family.

@Hogwarts4Christmas

YADNBU, I can't stand the monarchy and think all their assets Inc money, property, etc, should be surrendered to the state and, bar the Queen, Phillip and Prince Charles (only due to age), the rest of them should all have to start working for a living and pay their own way.

All the money from the Crown estate, etc, should be used to fund essential services such as NHS, cheaper public transport, etc.

If you go back far enough their riches stem from taxing ordinary people and landgrabbing, etc, anyway so I don't see it as 'their money/properties' and I do think it should be restored back to the public.

Tourists would still come because the Palaces, etc, would still be there, same as people still visit Versailles, etc, so that's not a valid excuse. It's not like they get to meet the Queen when they're looking around Buckingham Palace.

I'm pretty neutral on the RF, not very interested but I think making a family surrender all their assets to the state is a bit of a slippery slope. They might come after you or me next and I'd prefer to keep my house and my savings thanks very much.

@DomPom47

Agree with you OP. Tourists will still be coming into the country regardless of the Royal Family.

What modern offering do we have exactly for tourists to flock to this country?

I'm pretty neutral on the RF, not very interested but I think making a family surrender all their assets to the state is a bit of a slippery slope.

But, as has been explained above, most of those assets do in fact belong to the state. Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor does not own Buck Palace or Windsor Castle. The Crown, and by extension the British nation, does.

@DismantledKing

People saying ‘do you really want President Boris Johnson or President Blair?’ are missing a simple point; you can vote them out if they’re shit. A bunch of parasitical inbred halfwits? We’re apparently stuck with them.

Dismantled king but you still have to wait for that opportunity. Trump held power for 4 years before he could be voted out, which he was thankfully. But still 4 years to wait and vote him out.

Imagine Hitler was in power for "just 4 years" he managed to do enough damage with 1933 - 1945. When he expected to be in power for ever. Had he knowingly only had 4 years I'm sure he would have sped up some of his deplorable, savage and inhumane plans.

The stability of monarchy is partly what gives the pound it's strength. Our economy and them are entwined.

I get that people hate the idea of a monarchy and would prefer a republic, and I respect that. But it's just not for me. I think our economy and the power of our pound due to stability is more important than personalities that's all.

I accept and understand the counter arguments, the pro republicans and I respect their opinions, it just doesn't align with mine.

it's a safeguard to crazy dictatorships and wild politicians. Well I’d say it’s not working then.

@DomPom47

Agree with you OP. Tourists will still be coming into the country regardless of the Royal Family.

Exactly.

I'm don't understand why this myth persists.

You don't see Paris & New York - to give two examples - suffering touristically by their lack of royals.

I like the Royal Family and the history and culture it represents. Would you really prefer President Boris or whichever other numpty elected by the Great British Public. I can't imagine anything worse than a US style government.

If the monarch is just a figurehead not directly running the country, then why would getting rid of them give any more power to Boris Johnson?

Do people not realise there are many ways of running a country, you don't have to go the US route.

I'm always amazed by posters who seem to think that the royal family should be stripped of their lands and possessions. Land and possessions that they actually own and have inherited? I'm sure some posters would be quite happy to live in places like North Korea judging by what they consider to be reasonable state intervention/ownership!

What you’re doing there is confusing mild social democracy with North Korea. As North Korea appears to have a hereditary system in place, I’d say that the similarities are already there.

I know fuck all about politics

You said it.

@Bloodyavocadoagain

it's a safeguard to crazy dictatorships and wild politicians. Well I’d say it’s not working then.

I suspect you are trying to be witty but daily miserably since you have presumably never experienced how a dictatorship operates.

I always understood the Queen was no nonsense and big on doing one's duty, so why is she letting him hide?

Because he is a threat to the institution. Despite any personal feelings she has, the institution must be protected, not for the sake of it but she believes (rightly or wrongly) that the institution is there for the good of the nation, her duty is to ensure it survives for the next generation.

I hate the way the comms come out "his team will fight on a technicality" as though this is what the public wants to save dear old Andrew

The public should want him to get off on a technicality. Not because we believe he should get away with it, but because if there is a violation of procedure in the law, it is right that he can’t be held accountable. In this situation it may be that he gets away with it, but the next time it might be you, and the police might decide to make a case about it, and they may do that by skipping a step or breaking the rules of interrogation and obtaining a false confession, or carrying out an identity parade in a way that leads a witness to falsely state they saw you did it. In which case, you’d really want your lawyer to be able to say they did something wrong and you’d be glad you could fight it on “a technicality” because otherwise you’re going to jail.

Too often, people think they want something because they haven’t actually thought through the consequences and how a lack of oversight could impact on society.

There’s plenty of evidence that they’re interfering in policy making.

Let’s see it, then?

My family’s pretty fucked up too, so I won’t get too judgy for all but Andrew.

Our choices are monarchy or Korean style dictator? 🤣🤣🤣

Dismantled king but you still have to wait for that opportunity. Trump held power for 4 years before he could be voted out, which he was thankfully. But still 4 years to wait and vote him out.

Imagine Hitler was in power for "just 4 years" he managed to do enough damage with 1933 - 1945. When he expected to be in power for ever. Had he knowingly only had 4 years I'm sure he would have sped up some of his deplorable, savage and inhumane plans.

If you argument against an elected head of state is ‘look at Trump and Hitler!’, then it’s a rubbish one. The vast majority of countries manage.